Riddle me this /scil/

An optimal Dyson ball would emit no radiation (and so is effectively invisible to us). Space ships would still need to be immense to be seen, assuming they also emit detectable levels of radiation (which isn't going to be on an alien's mind when constructing them).

Our current telescopes can't even do that. The james webb will, but it's not up yet.
Bullshit. Thermodynamics requires that you get rid of heat

The pillars of creation are a bit bigger than a spaceship or some structures or ruins floating in space.

We don't even see the exoplanets in our neighboring planetary systems directly so how would we be able to see something small and dark floating around.

Also we don't see inside others galaxies, even not seeing any life at all inside the milky way would mean nothing.

Dyson spheres use all radiation from their star as energy. In terms of radiation, they should be similar to a clump of warmer dust. The same could be said for that of a space ship (which would also be much smaller).

An advanced civ that launches a huge structure the size of our moon a million lightyears away would take a million years for us to see it. Perhaps they exist but we are looking at the past by the time light reaches us.

>maybe advanced civilizations have good cloaking technology because they're in areas with lots of interplanetary warfare

That made me think.
Say there is an alien spaceship the size of a city floating around Neptune. It doesn't really emit any light it just has some flashing little dots all around.

Would we be able to be aware of its presence ?
how long would it takes us to see that there is something weird ?

If not, would it be the case if we somehow knew it's there and we were looking specifically for it ?

And if it was around Mars or Venus ?

We can't take actual pictures of exoplanets, even the largest ones, and you want us to take pictures of small hypothetical space stations or objects made for hypothetical alien civilizations in the incredible emptiness of space?

Because objects smaller than a moon are really difficult to image at any range. It is hard enough to see details on the ISS with a telescope.

You literally can't tell the difference between a natural blurry object and an artificial blurry object at long range.

No the James Webb Telescope cannot look at the moon, it is too bright. You're repeating leddit memes without understanding. Just because it has fine angular resolution doesn't mean it can see a 1cm2 object at 100,000 km.

If it emitted lots of heat and was much warmer than everything in the Neptune system, probably.

If it is well insulated and emits heat at a low temperature, probably not.

We haven't seriously looked.

>implying pixel resolution is even below a square meter

>Our telescopes are able to get hi res images of the pillars of creation
spotted the troll.
or retard. idk

We're probably the most advanced civilization in our galaxy, and there's no way in hell we'd detect something in another galaxy. Give it another 50 years for telescope and space travel to mature and develop, I feel like by the time I'm in my 70s-80s I'll be seeing some real interesting shit.

And they would have a distinct radiation signature, which we could detect:
home.fnal.gov/~carrigan/infrared_astronomy/infrared_astronomy_master.html

Too far away to see

>bumble bee hovering on the surface of the moon.

In terms of the vastness of space, the moon is equivalent to an object that is literally right in front of your eyeball.

>And they would have a distinct radiation signature
yes
>which we could detect:
NO

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere#Search_for_megastructures
>dentifying one of the many infrared sources as a Dyson sphere would require improved techniques for discriminating between a
>Dyson sphere and natural sources.[34] Fermilab discovered 17 potential "ambiguous" candidates, of which four have been
>named "amusing but still questionable".[35][full citation needed] Other searches also resulted in several candidates, which are, however,
>unconfirmed.[36][37][38]

tl;dr: At best we can say "maybe", and we have SEVENTEEN "maybe"s.

It depends on how bright the dots are. Probably the flashing alone would be enough for us to detect it.

>> doesn't emit any light
That's thermodynamically impausible, but it would probably make it easier to detect if it occludes neptune or something else. If it emits heat like it should, it would be difficult, but we could probably do it.

If it was well insulated, then it would eventually turn into slag.

If it's in thermodynamic equilibrium, IE everyone onboard is dead or hibernating and the reactor is off and it would be pretty hard to find.

Maybe because our world is in a containment/experimental zone that is against the experimenters' law for other species to intervene in such a zone? Our "observable universe" could only be as big as a blade of grass on a football field. And the nucleus of one of its cells that is our solar system has been deemed off limits.

No existing telescope can resolve any star besides the sun. Do the math. It would need to be absolutely massive.

The pyramid at Giza has a latitude coordinate that is the same as the metric speed of light to six significant digits.

seven digits i meant

Please stop trying to help.
www space com /37344-alma-captures-clearest-image-of-betelgeuse.html

I guess it just depends where I click

Someone wrote up a great paper recently, that looked at the statistics behind the Fermi paradox a bit closer.

Basically the fermi paradox math is the product of some limited set or probabilities, where each probability represents the odds of some necessary condition of life. Right?

Thats not that bayesian, because we dont know how many necessary conditions their are, and we dont know what their probabilities are. Either way, you should be able to graph this stuff, and see how likely it is that no life exists, or that every planet has life etc.

Their conclusion was that a better look at this chain of probabilities pegs the expected number of planets with life on them in our galaxy is around 8, but that the distribution was sufficiently wide that theres an 8% chance theres no other life in our galaxy.

Remember that We found just a few potentially Habitable Planets,

Looking through all Stars in the entire Night Sky. Billions of Stars.

With Humankind best telescopes. Which can't even see Pluto.

& There's no guarantee whatsoever that any of these Planets have any life in it,

They may have not even bacteria, let alone intelligent life.

Remember that both Venus & Mars are within the Habitable zone of our Sun. & Both Planets don't have any sign of even bacterial life.

...

because they're really REALLY far away

damn...

>Riddle me this /scil/
>If advanced alien civilizations exist, then why is there no physical evidence floating in space
>
>No structures of any kind, nothing. Even here on our world, past civilizations left behind immortal legacies that proved they were here.
>Our telescopes are able to get hi res images of the pillars of creation but nothing proving that intelligent life exists outside earth.
The pale blue dot. We just so happen to be in the perfect spot with the perfect elements. But who knows. There could be life just like our species.. um,um, human, ya that's what I'm looking for.

What about the WOW signal? I mean it's not an alien ship floating in space but it's something right?

Those structures, if they existed, would be hard to detect. Personally I don't think we should be trying to find intelligent life, and we shouldn't be shouting out for them to find us.

Didn't that just happen?

Whoa

They are already here. The first world is being conditioned to be unwaiveringly accepting of people totally unlike their own.

>radio telescopes

>They are already here.

Because the winning strategy is to migrate to a situation where you're not beaming radiation through the "visible" universe.

The visible universe has the possibility of relativistic weapons and it's far easier to introduce entropy to a high order system than the reverse.

aka Xenos scum would rather destroy a potential contact than invite the risk of species wipeout via "rods of god".

CONT.

Note that this only holds if it's possible for visible matter civilizations can actually propel objects to relativistic speeds (30% speed of light and above IIRC).

There is though.
We just don't accept it because (((they))) haven't announced it on the news.

How big do you think these guys were? We can't even image planets directly. Their tech would have to be the size of stars, making them the size of planets!

>visible matter civilizations
As opposed to what?
"People made of pure energy" is a Startrek plot, not reality.

>relativistic weapons
I'm pretty strongly convinced it's not as simple as the "kill-or-be-killed" folks think it is.
To start with, big relativistic weapons would be very obvious while they're in transit, which brings up the risk of retaliation - and even a small risk of MAD is enough to tip the scales back towards caution.

>This is blatantly and hilariously false. Our most powerful telescope at the moment can find a bumble bee hovering on the surface of the moon.
Then where's the telescope picture of the Apollo 11 flag?

"No"

but how would a bumblebee hover on the moon when theres no air?

>>visible matter civilizations
>As opposed to what?
>"People made of pure energy" is a Startrek plot, not reality.

You know what dark matter is, right? Something that isn't visible but which (according to the Standard Model) would make up roughly 70% of the mass of our universe.

I'm just saying that it's it wouldn't be prudent to discount the existence of other..."entities" navigating through that unseen mass of the universe.

That's a wild assumption.

It's pretty big, it's like looking in your aquarium on the beach next to the ocean and wondering why we haven't found sharks yet.

I don't want to find sharks

When you're dealing with the unknown, everything is a wild assumption.

But we do know that humans engage in a petty narcassism where their conditions are slights that will be repaid by the fairy tale forces of aliens. More people believe in "ET" than in something that utilizes a different suite of stratagems.

In their local provincialism, they imagine that the crown of intelligence is borne upon things that display altruism to non-group agents.

The idea that higher intelligence might be more ruthless, more calculating, and more discriminating, is something that's outside most westerners who assume that high-trust low-corruption societies are a norm rather than an exception. They even assume that human migrants share a desire for such a society, as opposed to leveraging societies to high-corruption for the enrichment of their extended family and clans.

it's not hovering it dropped dead on the surface can't you read

Not a riddle not science not wise what are you

Indeed. A highly advanced civilization capable of building space mega structures is going to be fucking worse than sharks.

why isnt that true of god?

Hook, line, and sinker.

Science can't explain why bumble bees fly in the first place so they probably use antigravity

But occasionally sharks wash up on the beach.

>This!

They have evolved to live between the 3d holographic universe. The last puzzle for humans is to figure out how to reverse gravity, so we can leave this damn black hole we live in right now... That's humanity goal. That's everything that live on this planets goal. Life is a race against being wasted in the singularity that is at the bottom of our black hole...
When we achieve this, its our turn to point the next intelligent life form in the right direction.

There is no law of physics or even economics that would prohibit a space-faring species from building constructs tens or even hundreds of millions of miles across. So the fact that we haven't seen such constructs, or really any amount of geometrically artificial stellar occlusion, suggests that intelligent species dont last very long by cosmic standards. It would only take about 200,000 years for self-replicating probes to visit every star in the Milky Way, and only a few million years for those probes to explore the galactic cluster. So from a strictly Bayesian point of view, we have to radically curb our expectations for how long we as a species will last and how much we will actually accomplish in the long term.

By the sheer amount fo galaxies existing, alien life is gauranteed to exist due to the fact that if the right conditions are met life becomes endemic to the planet, and those conditions are not impossibly hard to achieve.

But by the expansion of the universe combined with the forces of gravity basically separating the universe into random dots composed of several galaxies who will eventually become one, alien life is guaranteed to exist beyond any concievable distance that can be travelled by man.

To give you an idea: beyond andromeda, all other galaxies move faster than any communication we can have with them. We can't send nothing towards them because by the time they'd even leave our galaxy everything else would be so far away we won't even be able see it.

Now, why doens't life exist within our own galaxy, is ultimately a matter of luck and the fact that we have no viable way to send humans off planet without taking millenia to get any considerable distance within the galaxy. Perhaps one day we will find a distant radio communication from an alien planet, but that wuld be it. We'd have no way to reach them.

The speed of light is big

>why is there no physical evidence floating in space
what do you think the moon is

> It would only take about 200,000 years for self-replicating probes to visit every star in the Milky Way

The milky way is 100,000 light years wide. So to even travel across in 200,000 years would require traveling at 0.5c.

Just doing some math on my own, getting 70kg to 0.5c would take about 40% of the worlds global energy output. If you double that, since it will have to slow down as well, you are talking about a probe that can not only complicated enough to replicate, but also able to generate immense amounts of power.

Makes no sense senpai.

I got the 200,000 figure from a white paper from the Future of Humanity Institute. I dont remember how they came to that number, but you can probably find out with a Google search.

I think that's based on a calculation once done by Carl Sagan, but I have trouble finding a direct quote.
Is that using conventional chemical thrusters?

Although said probes would've come and gone unnoticed, the entire purpose of a probe being an small efficient low-mass instrument.

I'm not sold on Dyson spheres. Just because it's the application of power consumption taken to its logical extreme doesn't necessarily mean it's actually necessary, vital, or desirable to build one even for an extremely advanced and super power-hungry alien civilization. Not to say it wouldn't exist, but would it be prevalent enough that we would be able to see it using current telescopes?
>why doens't life exist within our own galaxy
bait?

>tfw fellow hyper-futurist

Exactly. A civilization only exists within this universe long enough to discover this ability, then disappears into its own seemingly invisible universe.

I was a big fan of the Tipler/Kurzweil "envelope the entire universe with computronium" approach to highly advanced civilizations, until it occurred to me that there's a quicker way, hinted at in Arthur C. Clarke's novelizations of 2001: A Space Odyssey and 2010: Odyssey Two.

Maybe they forgot a 0

The most effective search for life right now would focus on stars. A randomly blinking and dimming star, or one with a completely inexplicable chemical makeup would be good ways to signal occupied systems, and we've found one example of both of those.